Court name
Commercial Court of Uganda
Judgment date
16 December 2010

Mansoor Nyera vCompany Profiles (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application-2008/249) [2010] UGCommC 34 (16 December 2010);

Cite this case
[2010] UGCommC 34


THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(COMMERCIAL
COURT DIVISION)
 


HCT - 00 - CC - MA - 249 - 2008

MANSOOR NYERA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT


 


VERSUS


 
COMPANY PROFILES (U) LTD :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
 

 
BEFORE:  HON. JUSTICE GEOFFREY KIRYABWIRE
Civil Procedure – appeal against taxation of bill of costs – departure in pleadings -

Held : In this case, I find that the correct schedule was applied and that no misdirection on principle has been shown. Application dismissed.

Ruling


This application is brought by way of chamber summons under Section 62(1) of The Advocates Act and Rule 3 of The Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations S.1. 267-5.
The application seeks orders

1.      

The amount allowed in making 3 copies of the documents allowed in items 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 and 31 in the Respondents bills of costs amounting to Shs.394,000/= is manifestly excessive.

2.      
That the amount allowed in preparing the record of appeal and three copies there of amounting to Shs.580,000/= is manifestly excessive.

The bill of costs arises from a success appeal by the Respondent against the Applicant and another in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2007. The bill of costs was taxed and allowed at Shs.8,194,427/= down from Shs.12,132,052/= as submitted before the taxing officer.

It is the case of the Applicant that Regulation 2 of the 6th schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and taxation of costs) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “Advocates Remuneration Regulations”) which applied to the drawing of court papers should have been applied to items 8 and 9 of the taxed bill of costs. The Appellant submitted that the total award should have been Shs.60,000/= for item 8 and Shs.180,000/= for item 9 giving a total of Shs.240,000/=. In terms of taxation Shs.7,200,000/= was therefore to be taxed off from items 8 and 9 of the bill of costs. The amount therefore allowed should have been Shs.2,854,427/= instead of Shs.8,194,427/=. The other grounds were abandoned save for above two.

Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the learned Registrar/taxing master did the right thing in reaching the amount she allowed. She submitted that a petition of appeal is actually a record of appeal. Counsel of the Respondent submitted that the record of appeal had 372 folios and was allowed by the taxing master. Item 9 however was taxed off the sum of Shs.1,860,000/=. She also submitted that the amount allowed was not excessive.

I have addressed my mind on chamber summons and the affidavits for and against it. I have also addressed my mind to the submission of both counsel.

The principle in dealing with appeals of this nature involving bills of cost was given in the case of Patrick Makumbi & anor V Sole Electrics Ltd SCCA 11/94.

In that case Justice Manyindo (DCJ as he then was) held
 

“…the Appellate court will not interfere with an assessment to costs by a taxing master unless he misdirected himself on a matter of principle; but if the quantum of assessment is manifestly extravagant, a misdirection of principle may be a necessary inference …”

In this case, I find that the correct schedule was applied and that no misdirection on principle has been shown. That notwithstanding, the Applicant surprisingly abandoned his summons which targeted items; 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 31 and 33. Instead counsel for the Applicant addressed his mind to items 8 and 9 which were not part of the summons. This was a fatal departure.

All in all, the application fails with costs to the Respondent.


……………………………
Geoffrey Kiryabwire
JUDGE

 


Dated: 17/12/2010

17/12/2010
4:20 p.m.

Ruling read and signed in Chambers in the presence of;

-        P. Byaruhanga for Huadar Gaung Dong Chinese Co. Ltd. (mortgagee)
-        MD of Huadar Gaung Dong Chinese Co. Ltd. Mr. Chin Jin Hua
-        Ruth Naisamula - Court Clerk.

 


…………………………………
Geoffrey Kiryabwire

JUDGE



Date: 17/12/2010